Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 226 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeizure of goods and books of accounts - Scope of Power — Seizure of goods upheld by judge on ground seized goods did not tally with invoices produced and hence not accounted for in books of account — Findings based on exhaustive examination of facts and legal provisions — Held that:- The ambit of this jurisdiction dominantly is presided over by the two grounds enumerated in Order 47, rule 1 of the Code, i.e., (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decision was made, and (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The expression "sufficient reason" as a matter of universal rule even if not insisted upon to be analogous to these two legally codified precepts of review, a perceptible nexus ought to exist and unbridled divagation therefrom is the prepotent precedential mandate. A mistake or error apparent necessarily has to be one which is patent on the face of the record and does not warrant a detailed and exhaustive examination/scrutiny of the facts and the law involved to fathom and ferret out the same. A decision erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view of the same court was plausible is not envisaged within the legally recognized tenets of review jurisdiction and no re-hearing for correcting such a decision is permissible. The carefully secured distinction between these two cardinal jurisdictions is, amongst others, the time-tested endeavour to safeguard against the possibility of the same forum exercising appellate jurisdiction over its own determination—a concept anathemic to the notion of fairplay and justice—the quintessence of the rule of law. Grounds of seizure of the goods revealed that those were allegedly not matching with the invoices produced was also taken note of. Inferring that the allegations as made in the seizure lists are correct, it was held, inter alia, that as the seized goods were found not tallying with the invoices produced, those could not be said to have been accounted for in the books of accounts, registers and other documents of the respondent-company as contemplated under section 74(5)(a) (ii) of the Act. It, thus, concluded that the conditions precedent for the exercise of power under this provision of the Act did exist and, thus, the seizure of the goods could not be repudiated to be without jurisdiction or authority of law. Decision rendered by way of review of the original judgment in Dhanani Shoes Ltd. v. State of Assam [2008 (4) TMI 687 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] cannot be sustained in law and on facts. The impugned notice dated April 16, 2008 though mentions that the decision in Dhanani Shoes Ltd. v. State of Assam [2008 (4) TMI 687 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] had been taken note of in issuing the same, we are of the view that the respondent-company ought to avail of its remedies under the law vis-a-vis the same. Having reversed the judgment in Dhanani Shoes Ltd. v. State of Assam [2008 (7) TMI 869 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] whereby this notice too had been annulled on the limited considerations recited hereinabove, we consider it expedient not to offer any comment on the merit of the challenge to the notice dated April 16, 2008 and leave the parties to exhaust their remedies otherwise available in law. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|